Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 30
`
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
`DANIEL S. DROSMAN (200643)
`TOR GRONBORG (179109)
`ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART (144892)
`LUCAS F. OLTS (234843)
`J. MARCO JANOSKI GRAY (306547)
`CHRISTOPHER R. KINNON (316850)
`HEATHER G. SCHLESIER (322937)
`655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
`San Diego, CA 92101-8498
`Telephone: (619) 231-1058
`Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
`MOTLEY RICE LLC
`GREGG S. LEVIN (admitted pro hac vice)
`LANCE V. OLIVER (admitted pro hac vice)
`MEGHAN S.B. OLIVER (admitted pro hac vice)
`MAX N. GRUETZMACHER (admitted pro hac vice)
`CHRISTOPHER F. MORIARTY (admitted pro hac vice)
`MEREDITH B. WEATHERBY (admitted pro hac vice)
`28 Bridgeside Blvd.
`Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
`Telephone: (843) 216-9000
`Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
`Co-Class Counsel
`[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`Case No. 4:16-cv-05314-JST (SK)
`CLASS ACTION
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
`DATE:
`November 17, 2022
`TIME:
`2:00 p.m. (Courtroom 6)
`via videoconference
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`In re TWITTER INC. SECURITIES
`LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`ALL ACTIONS.
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ........................................................................................ 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ............................................................................. 2
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND........................................................ 3
`III.
`STANDARDS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`SETTLEMENTS................................................................................................................. 6
`A.
`The Proposed Settlement Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(e)(2) .................. 8
`1.
`Rule 23(e)(2)(A): Lead Plaintiffs and Their Counsel Have
`Adequately Represented the Class .............................................................. 8
`Rule 23(e)(2)(B): The Proposed Settlement Was Negotiated at
`Arm’s-Length After Mediation with an Experienced Mediator ................. 9
`Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(i): The Proposed Settlement Is Adequate
`Considering the Costs, Risk and Delay of Trial and Appeal ...................... 9
`a.
`The Costs and Risks of Trial and Appeal Support Approval
`of the Settlement ........................................................................... 10
`The Proposed Settlement Eliminates the Additional Cost
`and Delay of Continued Litigation ............................................... 11
`Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(ii): The Proposed Method for Distributing Relief
`Is Effective ................................................................................................ 12
`Rule 23(e)(2)(D): The Proposed Plan of Allocation Treats Class
`Members Equitably ................................................................................... 13
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`b.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`B.
`
`The Remaining Ninth Circuit Factors Are Satisfied ............................................. 13
`1.
`Discovery Completed and Stage of the Proceedings ................................ 13
`2.
`Counsel Views this Good-Faith Settlement as Fair, Reasonable,
`and Adequate ............................................................................................ 14
`The Reaction of Class Members to the Settlement ................................... 14
`The Settlement Amount ............................................................................ 15
`
`3.
`4.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION ........................... 16
`IV.
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS SATISFIES DUE PROCESS ............................................... 17
`V.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 18
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`i
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 3 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Campbell v. Facebook, Inc.,
`951 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................... 6
`Carson v. American Brands, Inc.,
`450 U.S. 79 (1981) ..................................................................................................................... 6
`Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Electric,
`361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 7, 9
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle,
`955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................. 16
`Community Resources for Independent Living v. Mobility Works of California,
`LLC,
`533 F. Supp. 3d 881 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ....................................................................................... 9
`Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo,
`544 U.S. 336 (2005) ................................................................................................................. 10
`Foster v. Adams & Associates, Inc.,
`2022 WL 425559 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022)............................................................................ 14
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................ 7, 8
`Hayes v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.,
`2016 WL 6902856 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2016) ......................................................................... 17
`Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`2018 WL 6619983 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018) ......................................................................... 13
`In re Capstone Turbine Corp. Securities Litigation,
`2020 WL 7889062 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2020) ......................................................................... 12
`In re Charles Schwab Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`2011 WL 1481424 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2011) ........................................................................... 8
`In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep EcoDiesel Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products
`Liability Litigation,
`2019 WL 2554232 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2019) ............................................................................. 7
`In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Securities Litigation,
`2010 WL 4537550 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2010) ........................................................................... 10
`In re Global Crossing Securities & ERISA Litigation,
`225 F.R.D. 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ............................................................................................. 13
`In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Economy Litigation,
`926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................. 6, 8
`In re Immune Response Securities Litigation,
`497 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (S.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................... 10
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`ii
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 4 of 30
`
`In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation,
`309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................. 14
`In re Omnivision Technologies, Inc.,
`559 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ................................................................................... 13
`In re Portal Software, Inc. Securities Litigation,
`2007 WL 4171201 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) ......................................................................... 17
`In re Veritas Software Corp. Securities Litigation,
`496 F.3d 962 (9th Circ. 2007) .................................................................................................. 17
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products
`Liability Litigation,
`895 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................... 6
`In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
`2020 WL 4212811 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) .......................................................................... 11
`In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation,
`2015 WL 6471171 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2015) .......................................................................... 11
`Kastler v. Oh My Green, Inc.,
`2022 WL 1157491 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2022) ........................................................................... 6
`Longo v. OSI Systems,
`2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158606 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2022) ..................................................... 13
`Mauss v. NuVasive, Inc.,
`2018 WL 6421623 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018) ............................................................................ 16
`Mendoza v. Hyundai Motor Co.,
`2017 WL 342059 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017) .............................................................................. 7
`National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
`221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................................................. 17
`Norton v. LVNV Funding, LLC,
`2021 WL 3129568 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2021) ............................................................................ 8
`Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commission of City & County of San
`Francisco,
`688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................. 6, 9
`Redwen v. Sino Clean Energy, Inc.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100275 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2013) ........................................................ 10
`Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc.,
`2022 WL 254349 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2022) ............................................................................ 14
`Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp.,
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................... 9, 14, 17
`Torrisi v. Tucson Electric Power Co.,
`8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1993) ...................................................................................................... 11
`Vataj v. Johnson,
`2021 WL 1550478 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2021) ......................................................................... 16
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`iii
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 5 of 30
`
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ........................................................................................................... 17
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) ........................................................................................................... 17
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ................................................................................................................... 7
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`iv
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 6 of 30
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT at 2:00 p.m. on November 17, 2022, via teleconference,
`in the courtroom of the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, in the United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Co-Class Representatives KBC
`Asset Management NV (“KBC”) and National Elevator Industry Pension Fund (“NEIPF,” and
`together with KBC, “Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”) will and hereby do respectfully move
`the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), for entry of a judgment granting
`final approval of the proposed settlement and entry of an order granting approval of the proposed
`plan of allocation. This motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
`as well as the accompanying Joint Declaration of Daniel S. Drosman and Lance V. Oliver in
`Support of (1) Class Representatives’ Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plan of
`Allocation and (2) Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and
`Award to Class Representatives (the “Joint Declaration”), with attached exhibits.
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 7 of 30
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Whether the Court should grant final approval of the Settlement.
`Whether the Court should approve the Plan of Allocation.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 8 of 30
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e), Class Representatives, on behalf
`of themselves and all members of the certified Class, respectfully submit this memorandum in
`support of their motion for: (1) final approval of the Settlement of the Litigation for
`$809.5 million in cash, and (2) approval of the Plan of Allocation. The terms of the Settlement
`with Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter” or the “Company”) are set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
`dated January 5, 2022 (the “Stipulation”).1 See ECF No. 653-4.2
`The $809,500,000 Settlement, achieved only after more than a half-decade of hard-fought
`litigation, is the second-largest securities class action recovery ever obtained in the Ninth Circuit,
`ranks within the top 20 largest securities fraud settlements achieved since the passage of the
`Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), and came only days prior to the
`commencement of trial. As detailed in the accompanying Joint Declaration, over the course of
`this Litigation, Plaintiffs withstood Defendants’ motion to dismiss; obtained class certification;
`completed extensive fact and expert discovery; defeated Defendants’ motion for summary
`judgment (and a subsequent motion for partial reconsideration); briefed Daubert motions and
`motions in limine; and prepared for a six-week jury trial. As a result, Class Representatives and
`Class Counsel had a thorough understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their claims
`when the parties reached the Settlement on the very last business day before commencement of
`jury selection.
`From the outset and throughout the Litigation, Defendants adamantly denied liability and
`asserted strong defenses. Settlement negotiations were lengthy and included multiple in-person
`mediations with the Hon. Layn R. Phillips (Ret.) and follow-up teleconferences and meetings.
`
`1
`All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meaning set forth in the
`Stipulation.
`2
`Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and each Class Member, and the
`Individual Defendants, Richard Costolo and Anthony Noto, also entered into a separate
`agreement providing for mutual releases and dismissal with prejudice of the Litigation against
`them contemporaneous with the dismissal of the Litigation against Twitter. See ECF No. 653-5.
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 9 of 30
`
`Class Counsel made it clear that they would continue to litigate (and, in fact, did) rather than
`settle for less than fair value. Indeed, Class Counsel persisted for nearly three years from the
`initial mediation until they achieved the Settlement—one they believe is in the best interest of
`the Class.
`Class Counsel are experienced in prosecuting securities class actions, and have concluded
`that the Settlement, which recovers between approximately one-quarter and one-third of the
`estimated recoverable damages, is an excellent result based on all relevant factors, including,
`inter alia: (a) the substantial risk, expense, and uncertainty in continuing the Litigation through
`trial and likely post-trial motion(s) and appeal(s); (b) the relative strengths and weaknesses of
`the claims and defenses asserted; (c) a complete analysis of the evidence obtained and the legal
`and factual issues presented; (d) past experience in litigating complex actions similar to the
`Litigation; and (e) the disputes between the parties concerning the merits and damages.
`Moreover, Class Representatives—who are the types of institutional investors Congress
`envisioned when passing the PSLRA—fully support the Settlement.
`The reaction of the Class thus far also supports the Settlement and Plan of Allocation.
`Pursuant to the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice, ECF
`No. 658 (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), over 401,000 copies of the Notice were sent to
`potential Class Members and nominees, and notice was published in The Wall Street Journal and
`transmitted over PR Newswire. While the October 27, 2022, deadline to object to the Settlement
`and Plan of Allocation has not yet passed, to date no objection(s) have been received.3
`Class Representatives also request that the Court approve the proposed Plan of
`Allocation, which was set forth in the Notice sent to Class Members. The Plan of Allocation
`governs how claims will be calculated and how settlement proceeds will be distributed among
`Authorized Claimants. It was prepared with consultation with Class Representatives’ damages
`expert, and is based on the out-of-pocket measure of damages, i.e., the difference between what
`
`3
`
`Should any objections be received, Class Counsel will address them in its reply papers.
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 10 of 30
`
`Class Members paid for their Twitter common stock during the Class Period and what they would
`have paid had the alleged misstatements and omissions not been made.
`In short, the $809,500,000 Settlement of this complex securities fraud action, and the
`associated Plan of Allocation to distribute it, are fair and reasonable, and the Settlement itself is
`an excellent result for the Class. Class Representatives and Class Counsel strongly support its
`approval by the Court.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`The initial complaint in this action was filed on September 16, 2016, asserting violations
`of the federal securities laws against Defendants. Joint Decl. ¶ 17; ECF No. 1. On December 22,
`2016, the Court appointed KBC as Lead Plaintiff and Motley Rice LLC (“Motley Rice”) as Lead
`Counsel. Joint Decl. ¶ 17; ECF No. 72. Lead Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 2, 2017,
`asserting claims on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Twitter’s common
`stock between February 6, 2015, and July 28, 2015, inclusive. Joint Decl. ¶¶ 18-19; ECF No. 81.
`Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, Joint Decl. ¶ 20; ECF No. 91, Lead Plaintiff
`opposed, Joint Decl. ¶ 20; ECF No. 94, and Defendants replied in support of their motion, Joint
`Decl. ¶ 20; ECF No. 104. On October 16, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in large
`part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Joint Decl. ¶ 20; ECF No. 113.
`Defendants answered the Complaint on November 17, 2017, Joint Decl. ¶ 21; ECF
`No. 118, amended their answer on December 8, 2017, Joint Decl. ¶ 21; ECF No. 119, and the
`Parties began formal discovery. Discovery included extensive negotiations between the Parties
`regarding the method and form of Defendants’ document production, the search terms, and the
`techniques Defendants would use to respond to Lead Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Joint
`Decl. ¶¶ 28-51. The Parties briefed a myriad of discovery disputes for decision by the Court. Id.
`Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ efforts led to the production and analysis of approximately a quarter-
`million documents (encompassing millions of pages) from over 50 custodians, 27 fact witness
`depositions, and thousands of pages of sworn interrogatory responses and admissions. Id. ¶¶ 8,
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 11 of 30
`
`31. Plaintiffs also produced thousands of pages of documents, sat for depositions, and provided
`responses to Defendants’ discovery requests. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25.
`On July 17, 2018, after briefing and argument from the Parties, the Court certified a class
`of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded
`common stock of Twitter during the period from February 6, 2015, through July 28, 2015,
`inclusive, and were damaged thereby. Joint Decl. ¶¶ 8, 26; see also ECF No. 181 (the “Class
`Certification Order”). The Court appointed KBC and NEIPF as Class Representatives and
`appointed Motley Rice and Robbins Geller as Class Counsel. Joint Decl. ¶ 26; ECF No. 181.
`After the Court issued its Order Approving Class Notice and Amended Joint Proposal for
`Dissemination, Joint Decl. ¶ 27; see also ECF No. 238 (the “Class Notice Order”), the Court-
`appointed administrator, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. (“Epiq”), distributed notice
`of the Class Action to potential Class members and received twenty valid and timely requests to
`opt-out of the Litigation, Joint Decl. ¶ 27; ECF No. 305.
`The parties also conducted expert discovery covering a wide range of areas including
`loss causation, social media user and engagement metrics, stock trading plans, corporate
`disclosure requirements and processes, and analyst, investor, and advertiser perceptions of
`Twitter. Joint Decl. ¶¶ 52-57. Expert discovery began in June 2019 when the parties exchanged
`a total of seven expert reports, with four opening expert reports disclosed by Class Counsel, and
`three by Defendants. Id. ¶ 53. In August 2019, the parties exchanged a total of nine rebuttal
`expert reports, three by Class Counsel and six by Defendants. Id. Between July 2019 and
`September 2019, Class Counsel deposed all six of Defendants’ experts, and defended the
`depositions of Class Counsel’s six experts. Id. Class Counsel also exchanged and analyzed
`thousands of documents the experts cited in their reports or relied upon in forming their opinions.
`Id. Class Counsel’s efforts during expert discovery was notable considering the sheer breadth
`of Defendants’ experts’ opinions, with Defendants’ ten expert reports spanning over 650 pages
`(including exhibits and appendices). Id. ¶ 55.
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 12 of 30
`
`On September 13, 2019, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’
`claims. Joint Decl. ¶ 58; ECF No. 314. Defendants also moved to exclude the testimony of two
`of Plaintiffs’ critical experts. Joint Decl. ¶ 61; ECF Nos. 374 & 376. On January 28, 2020, the
`Court denied in full Defendants’ motions to exclude the testimony of these two experts, Joint
`Decl. ¶ 63; ECF No. 421, and the Parties submitted seven additional motions to exclude the
`testimony of experts slated to provide trial testimony, Joint Decl. ¶ 8. The Court denied, in full,
`Defendants’ summary judgment motion on April 17, 2020, Joint Decl. ¶ 64; ECF No. 478, then
`subsequently granted in part and denied in part the Parties’ motions to exclude experts designated
`to offer opinions at trial on April 20, 2020, Joint Decl. ¶ 64; ECF No. 482. Following the Court’s
`summary judgment order and extensive meet and confer discussions regarding the scope of
`admissible evidence at trial, the Parties briefed 19 motions in limine. Joint Decl. ¶ 67; see, e.g.,
`ECF Nos. 497, 498 & 527.
`Due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, the previously
`scheduled trial date of June 22, 2020, Joint Decl. ¶ 66; ECF No. 455, ultimately was rescheduled
`for September 20, 2021, Joint Decl. ¶ 66; ECF No. 567. In the interim, the Parties negotiated
`and submitted to the Court a joint pretrial statement, Joint Decl. ¶ 70; ECF No. 584, proposed
`joint jury instructions, Joint Decl. ¶ 70; ECF No. 585, and competing proposed verdict forms,
`Joint Decl. ¶ 70; ECF Nos. 586 & 587, in addition to participating in multiple pretrial
`conferences, Joint Decl. ¶ 71; see, e.g., ECF Nos. 589 & 599. The Parties also briefed and argued
`motions in the weeks prior to the scheduled trial date, including motions regarding whether or
`not: Defendants should be permitted to substitute one of their proposed experts, Joint Decl. ¶ 71;
`ECF No. 603; Plaintiffs should be permitted to use leading questions with trial witnesses
`associated with Defendants; Joint Decl. ¶ 71; ECF No. 605; the Court should reconsider its
`summary judgment order, Joint Decl. ¶ 64; ECF No. 611; and Plaintiffs should be permitted to
`call a non-party journalist to testify at trial, Joint Decl. ¶ 71; ECF No. 629.
`On September 16, 2021, just four days before a jury was to be empaneled, the parties,
`with the assistance of the Hon. Layn Phillips (Ret.) as mediator, reached an agreement to settle
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 13 of 30
`
`the Litigation for $809,500,000, subject to the Court’s approval. Joint Decl. ¶ 78. The Parties
`filed the Stipulation of Settlement on January 7, 2022. Id. ¶ 79. On August 5, 2022, the Court
`granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, directed notice be provided to the Class, and set
`a schedule for further briefing seeking final approval of the settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
`and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Joint Decl. ¶ 79; ECF No. 658.
`
`III.
`
`STANDARDS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`SETTLEMENTS
`The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong judicial policy that favors settlements, particularly
`where complex class action litigation is concerned.” Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d 1106,
`1121 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 556 (9th
`Cir. 2019)). The decision of whether a settlement is fair is ultimately left for the sound discretion
`of the trial judge. See In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab.
`Litig., 895 F.3d 597, 611 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Deciding whether a settlement is fair is ultimately ‘an
`amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice,’ best left for the district
`judge.”) (citation omitted). Courts, however, should not convert settlement approval into an
`inquiry into the merits as “the court’s intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual
`agreement negotiated between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to
`reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or
`collusion between, the negotiating parties.” Kastler v. Oh My Green, Inc., 2022 WL 1157491,
`at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2022) (quoting Officers for Just. v. Civ. Serv. Comm’n of City & Cnty.
`of S.F., 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982)); see also Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 88
`n.14 (1981) (cautioning against “resolv[ing] unsettled legal questions” on settlement approval).
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires judicial approval for the settlement of
`claims brought as a class action and provides “the court may approve [a proposed settlement]
`only after a hearing and only on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ.
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. THEREOF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK)
`
`6
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-05314-JST Document 660 Filed 10/13/22 Page 14 of 30
`
`P. 23(e)(2). To determine whether a settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” the Court
`must:
`
`consider[] whether: (A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately
`represented the class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length; (C) the relief
`provided for the class is adequate, taking into account: . . . the costs, risks, and
`delay of trial and appeal [among other things]; and (D) the proposal treats class
`members equitably relative to each other.
`
`Id.
`
`In addition to the Rule 23(e) considerations, courts in the Ninth Circuit consider the
`following factors when examining whether a proposed settlement comports with Rule 23(e)(2):
`(1) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely
`duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status
`throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of
`discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views
`of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of
`the class members to the proposed settlement.
`Mendoza v. Hyundai Motor Co., 2017 WL 342059, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017)4 (quoting
`Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also Hanlon v.
`Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)).
`The Preliminary Approval Order considered the Rule 23(e)(2) and Ninth Circuit factors
`when assessing the Settlement and found that it was fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to
`further consideration at the Final Approval hearing. See ECF No. 658. The Court’s conclusion
`on preliminary approval is equally true now as nothing has changed between August 5, 2022,
`and the present. See In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep EcoDiesel Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods.
`Liab. Litig., 2019 WL 2554232, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2019) (“Those conclusions [drawn at
`preliminary approval] stand and counsel equally in favor of final approval now.”).
`Class Representatives respectfully submit that the proposed Settlement satisfies
`Rule 23(e)(2), the relevant Ninth Circuit factors, and the guidelines set forth in the Northern
`
`4
`“Because there is no governmental entity involved in this litigation, this [seventh] factor
`is inapplicable.” Id. at *7.
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. & MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`& PLAN OF ALLOCATION & MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP